2454 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) of the adequacy of diagnostic infrastructures at MS level, in particular with the constraints from decreasing resources for this field and erosion of scientific expertise, as explored in section 3.9.1. According to the general survey and expert opinion, diagnostics at EU level are fairly well developed, but there is concern about erosion of expertise in the more traditional diagnostic fields and of the underpinning taxonomic base/expertise. Concerns also exist with regard to maintenance and access to collections. Overall, scientific expertise is considered to be adequate from an EU point of view: MS CAs indicate that in case of need of expertise for particular HOs, appropriate laboratories are found in other MS. However, the available expertise at national level is highly variable between MS, and this causes some concern. In terms of the organisation of diagnostics, MS have different approaches: there are some cases where centralisation is applied, in others (MS with decentralised administration) regional laboratories exist. In one MS, laboratory tasks are completely outsourced, partly also to other MS. Laboratory testing can be delegated to legal persons – private or public, such as universities, research institutes or private laboratories, which may perform other than public functions. This amendment to Art. 2.1.g. of Directive 2000/29/EC was introduced by Council Directive 2009/143/EC 183 , modifying earlier provisions (which allowed delegation of laboratory tasks only to a legal person charged exclusively with specific public functions under its officially approved constitution). The organisation of diagnostics for plant health issues in the MS visited in the context of this evaluation is indicated in Table 3-17. MS describe different situations and limitations at country level. Overall, the majority of MS consider that the existing capacity at national level only partially allows for a rapid and reliable diagnosis of all regulated HOs; this is mostly explained by the limited and decreasing financial and human resources. Gaps in detection capacity (in terms of methods and reference materials) are also indicated by a number of MS, with regard to rare or new HOs. The MS field visits also made this difference clear: in some cases, it was pointed out that it is increasingly difficult to find experienced experts in specific fields as expertise is eroding - experts in classical methodologies have to a large extent retired and young experts are few due to more attractive subjects using innovative biotechnological tools in e.g. medical science. The divergence in diagnostic capacity across the EU is also due to the inherent characteristics of research on plant health which explains the difficulties in this field. As discussed in section 3.9.1, plant science is not a ―self – financing area‖ nor a high priority compared to other scientific fields such as nanotechnology, engineering etc. Indeed, as in most research fields, funding will depend on the level of commercial interest for the application of the research outputs. In those MS where plant health is important for trade and production, the diagnostic sector appears to be highly developed, with a high volume of resources devoted to research and a clear structure and 183 Council Directive 2009/143/EC of 26 November 2009 amending Directive 2000/29 as regards the delegation of the tasks of laboratory testing. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 166
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) organisation in place. In these cases, it appears that investment in necessary skills for human resources have been undertaken to address the erosion of expertise. Additionally to public funding, other research and laboratories are funded by industry. However, only a minority of MS are in this situation. In most MS, the situation appears to be more mixed, with expertise and resources available for some HOs and competences, and limited or threatened for others. Results of the general survey indicate that resources for diagnostics are in many cases considered limited, even with regard to HOs for which detection is possible and in terms of activities that the laboratories would technically be able to carry out. In particular, whereas the resources are adequate to carry out the laboratory diagnostic activities, a weak aspect is the development of diagnostic methods, for which funding is not always available. Some MS indicated that for certain tasks such as maintenance of collections, developing and evaluating diagnostic protocols, resources are lacking and this is seen as a problem in the context of the availability of taxonomic expertise for the discipline. Sourcing national expertise is also indicated to be problem as well as lack of advanced equipment for some HOs. A number of MS indicated specifically the domains in which resources are lacking and many indicated that even where expertise is currently present, retirement of experts will in future pose a threat in terms of the availability of these competences. Variability also occurs among MS in terms of infrastructure and equipment, with some MS considering the current status of the national facilities adequate, and others indicating that improvements would be needed but there is lack of funding for these. Reference collections are limited in the MS to those HOs which are frequently tested, and these collections also appear to be under threat. Also, collections tend to vary according to the discipline and to the occurrence of the HO in the country. This is an area indicated by several MS as one where cooperation and networking among MS would improve the availability; some MS already refer to other MS for reference materials that are not in their collections. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 167
Page 1 and 2:
I European Commission Directorate G
Page 3 and 4:
Expert Team Agra CEAS Consulting: D
Page 5 and 6:
Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
7. Implementation of control and em
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Table 1-4: Obligations, tasks, volu
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Nb Title of the obligation of the P
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Protection of the EU against the ha
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Figure 3-3: Definitions of potentia
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Source: FCEC based on general surve
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 159 and 160: 3.5.7 Conclusions on performance of
Page 185 and 186: 3.8 Export, transit and re-export i
Page 199: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 231 and 232: PWN Key host plant(s) Estimated pot
Page 241 and 242: Table 3-20 Estimated potential bene
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Table 3-33: Completed EU standard r
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Table 3-36: Key conclusions from th
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Policy area Evaluation Question (a)
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Source: FCEC, based on results of t
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Eichhornia crassipes (aquatic plant
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375 and 376:
Page 377 and 378:
Page 379 and 380:
Page 381 and 382:
Page 383 and 384:
Page 385 and 386:
Page 387 and 388:
Page 389 and 390:
Page 391 and 392:
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
Page 399 and 400:
Page 401 and 402:
Page 403 and 404:
Page 405 and 406:
Page 407 and 408:
Page 409 and 410:
Page 411 and 412:
Page 413 and 414:
Page 415 and 416:
Page 417 and 418:
Page 419 and 420:
Options (most recommended) 6.Emerge
show all

2454 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?